Optimism based on wishful thinking suggests that the Israeli military campaign against Lebanon may end “in a short period,” as military and political sources in Tel Aviv are saying. However, the problem, based on readings of the past “clashes” between Lebanon and Israel, is that optimism regarding a real, positive shift in Israeli policy over the past few decades has never been justified. We always ended up with only more obstinacy and aggression. The list of factors that reinforce this view is too extensive to cover here. The clearest is undoubtedly the near-total collapse of moderate Israeli forces that believe in dialogue, which has coincided with the steady rise in the influence of extremist fascist settlers advocating “population transfers.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is beholden to them today. He depends on them not only in his battles with civilian political opponents but also in his struggle with Israel’s military and security institutions, which have denounced his opportunism and criticized him sharply. The painful reality is that Netanyahu has succeeded — and continues to succeed — in weakening his critics by plowing ahead, deliberately adding new fronts, and pursuing new objectives with every war adventure. Take Gaza, for instance: It seems as though recent events have obscured what is happening as Israel’s crimes are met with painful silence and global complicity on all levels. Meanwhile, settler organizations, convinced that the enclave is theirs once and for all, are racing to “their share of the pie,” as we see the rise of obnoxious advertisements for the sale of real estate in the areas from which people have been displaced. As for the “northern front,” where Lebanese cities and villages are being bombarded and Israeli forces try to make breakthroughs in south Lebanon that allow for imposing new geographical realities, sensible Lebanese are concerned about Israel’s “shifting objectives.” The Lebanese remember what happened in Gaza, where Netanyahu’s government justified massacres, destruction, and displacement, first under the pretexts of “rescuing hostages” and “self-defense,” and then the need to destroy the military infrastructure of Hamas. Now we have the point in which it is openly threatening settlement expansion. However, Lebanon is suffering from four deadly “afflictions” from which the Lebanese have learned almost nothing. The first is fragmentation along sectarian lines, which has prevented the Lebanese for decades from establishing a shared identity that fosters loyalty to a shared nation. Currently, it is clear that Israel’s “war planners” are eager to stir hostility and fuel mutual fears by intensifying the military campaign and aggravating the displacement from areas with a particular sectarian affiliation to other regions. And, of course, there is always the potential for deliberate incitement of frictions and provocations in this politically and socially fragile country. The second affliction is the reliance of this entity’s various communities on “foreign powers” to avoid domestic consensus. They do this although it has become evident that each and every time, this incurs high costs. Domestic consensus would be a more effective and safer option; unfortunately, however, this futile reliance on others has not changed since the emergence of the first “national identity” project — centered around the Mount Lebanon region — in the 16th and 17th centuries. The third affliction is that the forces surrounding this entity — or “nation,” as some prefer to call it — have always had a powerful impact on it. On the one hand, it is not an isolated island, while on the other, its borders have always been vulnerable, which, in turn, affects demographic balances. The fourth affliction is that, throughout its long history — from the days of the “city-states” in ancient times to its current status as an independent state — Lebanon has always been in contact with external forces by land and sea. Over the decades, various Asian, African, and European powers have passed through this land and held territory; this foreign influence in and over Lebanon persists to this day. Thus, the current state of affairs presents both severe existential threats and valuable opportunities that could save the country if the Lebanese tread wisely. By that, I mean if they come to an understanding among themselves, build common ground, and agree on priorities, before losing control over their resources in a Middle East, where the role of “small players” is shrinking and their fate is determined by global decision-makers. The US election campaigns have shown us what it means for Washington to be busy with its own problems. It has also shown some regional players, especially Israel, to be adept at exploiting this preoccupation to advance their own projects aimed at reshaping the region. Naturally, many questions about the future are being posed by the Lebanese, both those in their homeland and the diaspora. I believe that the result of the US elections, now only days away, will be crucial for shaping the broad trajectory of the region. Some may argue that there are no notable differences between the policies of the two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, regarding the Middle East, despite their clear contrast on domestic issues. Politicians who are on the rise distance themselves from us and curry favor with our adversaries. Eyad Abu Shakra This may be somewhat true. However, it is also somewhat true that we, as Lebanese, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, are far too weak to ensure the changes we seek within the corridors of decision-making in Washington. We do not have a good grasp of the “deep state” there. Our understanding of its political culture and network of interests is limited, and we are pursuing divergent goals. Our focus is on the short term, and our short attention span is not long enough to build strong foundations for advancing our interests, preempting developments, and using our “leverage” to achieve objectives. For all these reasons, we find ourselves constantly reacting without foresight. Meanwhile, the politicians who are on the rise distance themselves from us and curry favor with our adversaries. They only come running to us for their “retirement.” Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949 This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.